{"id":2503,"date":"2017-11-08T11:49:40","date_gmt":"2017-11-08T08:49:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/?p=2503"},"modified":"2017-11-08T11:49:40","modified_gmt":"2017-11-08T08:49:40","slug":"alison-rowan-understanding-authentia-in-3-maccabees-2-29","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/2503\/alison-rowan-understanding-authentia-in-3-maccabees-2-29\/","title":{"rendered":"Alison Rowan, Understanding authentia in 3 Maccabees 2, 29"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is a proposal by Alison Rowan. If you are an expert in the field you are welcome to contribute<\/a> to these remarks, concerning 3 MACCABEES 2, 29<\/a><\/p>\n

________<\/p>\n

I have an interest in the translation of the authent<\/em>– (\u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4-) words and note that authentia<\/em> appears in 3 Macc 2:29c as \u201cand to be set apart with these limited rights.\u201d It appears that L D L Brenton uses authentia<\/em>, derived from authentes<\/em>, whose cognates he has assumed to be auto<\/em> (self) and hentes<\/em> (worker). From these, the adjectives authentic (genuine or original) can be easily derived. Along with the usual meaning of absolute authority listed for authentia<\/em> in most lexica, it is logical that his translation could read that, upon fulfilling the requirements, the Jews were to be returned to their original rights, limited as they were. In this state they were, to some degree, masters of themselves.<\/p>\n

However I have noted several anomalies in the translation, which raise doubt over the given meaning of authentia<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1) Questions of Semantics.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A lot of my interest in the authent<\/em>– words is over their chronological semantics in a wide range of literature, but especially the sacred texts. In particular, where on translation, there has been retrospective eisegesis which leads to what could be a most erroneous rendering of the author\u2019s intended communication. This is nowhere more significant than in ascertaining more precisely what St. Paul meant by authentein<\/em> andros<\/em> in 1 Tim 2:12.<\/p>\n

I have always understood authentia<\/em>, in its later meaning as an authority of absolute power, to be that of an autocratic monarch, such as a Pharoah, or a Caesar, holding his thumb up or down, with the power of life or death over another. Would not the use of THAT word to describe the \u201crights\u201d of a conquered people, themselves UNDER the rule of a powerful autocratic King, be somewhat inappropriate?<\/p>\n

It was this illogicality which had prompted my suggestion that there may have been a semantic progression into its later autocracy denotation, from an earlier meaning, possibly used here, of \u201cauthority to kill”, but in this context, \u201cpermission to sacrifice.\u201d<\/p>\n

I will now attempt to support this proposition.<\/p>\n

2) Questions of Lexicography<\/strong><\/p>\n

From the above, it seems to make little sense to describe being, to some degree, masters of themselves as limited authentia<\/em>. A different word is needed to indicate a degree of limited self-determination or permission \u2026 such as \u201crights.\u201d However, \u201crights\u201d is an unlikely meaning since it should be noted that in the very next verse, \u201cequal rights\u201d is translated from isopolitas<\/em>, not isoauthentias<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Exousia<\/em> is usually translated as \u201cauthority,” so why employ another word here unless there is an intended nuance which modifies it? But authentia<\/em> (if it meant \u201cabsolute authority\u201d at that time) would surely intensify its meaning, not diminish it to have a connotation of \u201crights\u201d?<\/p>\n

Scholars have assumed a derivation of authentia<\/em> from the cognates, auto<\/em> (self) and hentes<\/em> (worker) as aut(o)hentes,<\/em> thus \u201cauthentic, original” – as an adjective. But there is an alternative derivation from auto<\/em> and entea<\/em> (arms, armour), auth(o)entea<\/em> yielding the far more violent association, often recorded in texts.<\/p>\n

I hold the belief that there has been much confusion in the translation of the authent<\/em>– words from employing an unjustified bias towards the hentes<\/em> cognate. This has been established by Thayer sponsoring the phrase \u201cby one\u2019s own hand\u201d added in the text of Wisdom of Solomon 12:6 in the Duoay Rheims Bible, alone, as a poetic irony. It is found neither in the Greek, nor in any other early Bible. Yet, Thayer, Liddell and Scott all include this phrase, completely unjustified in their definitions of the authent<\/em>– verb and nouns! Whenever the adjective authentikos<\/em> is used, then the cognate hentes<\/em> correctly yields \u201cself-worked” (\u201cauthentic”). But for the verb, authenteo<\/em> and two nouns, authentes<\/em> and authentia<\/em>, I believe the cognate entea<\/em> should be used exclusively<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Authentes<\/em>, meaning \u201cslayer of oneself or others,” appears in Wisdom of Solomon 12:6, as authentas<\/em>. The Greek \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u1f73\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b2\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u1f75\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd translates as “Parents, slayers of helpless souls.” In keeping with this meaning of authentes<\/em>, should there not also be a connection with killing in the word authentia<\/em> in 3 Macc 2:29?<\/p>\n

There is a strongly supporting piece of literature by Cassius Dio Cocceianus, 155-235 AD whose single use of authentia<\/em> is in his Historiae<\/em> Romanae<\/em> Book 30-35, Chap 102, which says:<\/p>\n

The son of Marius, by his authority to execute, having put to death a certain one of the tribunes, sent his head to the consuls, and another he hurled down from the Capitol…<\/em><\/p>\n

The semantic shift towards \u201cabsolute sway” from this judicial licence for execution is evident. Could this definition of authentia, written three centuries earlier, also apply in Ptolemy’s decree, but for killing animals in sacrifice?”<\/p>\n

3) Questions of Grammar<\/strong><\/p>\n

“With these limited rights” has been given as the translation of \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1f73\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u1f77\u03b1\u03bd<\/p>\n

eis<\/em> taking the acc, should not mean \u201cwith\u201d, but into\/unto\/for.<\/p>\n

Authentian<\/em> is acc, fem, singular, not plural of authentia<\/em>, later translated as \u201cabsolute sway or authority\u201d. To give it a plural meaning as “rights” is inconsistent.<\/p>\n

This is quite a fine point, but nevertheless, does contribute something important, although difficult to explain. Prosunestalmenen<\/em> is a verbal perfect participle active, acc fem, sg, describing authentia<\/em> as restricted\/limited\/made conditional. The perfect tense indicates that the effect of an accomplished past act continues into the present, ie something had happened in the past which caused the restriction to now exist. It could be best expressed as “now, having been limited” in some way. The perfect tense always defines that a change has happened.<\/p>\n

As it reads in the current translation, using a perfect participle, it would be more logical, that “these rights” ought to be “now reinstated”, not “now restricted\/limited.” It cannot be saying that they are to be returned to their original <\/strong>(authentic) limited rights, because the perfect participle defines that they are \u201cNOW limited rights” – they have changed! The \u201crights\u201d cannot be simultaneously further limited and original! Authentia<\/em> if it were to connote \u201coriginal rights” simply does not apply. Through fulfilling the conditions, there would have been actually NO change in the already existing limitations as a conquered people. A simple adjective would have been employed for \u201climited” e.g. prosunestelikan<\/em>, rather than the perfect participle that has been used.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, it’s NOT TRUE that their rights are unchanged. They are NOT in their \u201coriginal rights”, limited as they already were, and I shall explain in the next section what has changed.<\/p>\n

4) Questions of Translation<\/strong><\/p>\n

I believe that the whole of verse 28 should be reviewed.<\/p>\n

28a: \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f73\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b8\u03c5\u1f79\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u1f73\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9<\/p>\n

This has been translated as “That entrance to their own temple was to be refused to all those who would not sacrifice.”<\/p>\n

It COULD be understood as \u201cthose who will not make the following sacrifices of themselves\u201d, but here, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b8\u03c5\u1f79\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd should be literally translated as “those not offering by burning.” In other words, \u201cthose not making burnt offerings.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, I question the translation as it stands, since it makes no sense. It reads that Ptolemy prohibits those who don’t want to sacrifice and welcomes those who do! The Jews WISHED to sacrifice to YHWH, so why is Ptolemy stipulating a prohibition which is exempted if they do what they wish to do, anyway? This is not a punitive measure at all!<\/p>\n

Would the phrase be better understood as Ptolemy being exceptionally emphatic! He has already written, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f73\u03bd\u03b1 which in itself is strict enough as “not even one” or “no-one, without exception.” However, in addition to this, could it be possible that the following \u03bc\u1f74 “not” is there to strengthen \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u1f73\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, to “come into,” “enter” and should not, therefore, be inserted into “those offering by burning”?<\/p>\n

Perhaps 28a should simply read “Absolutely no persons may enter their own temple to make burnt offerings”? In other words, he was allowing entrance for prayer, but he was BANNING ALL BURNT OFFERINGS – the whole of Judaism\u2019s ethos of atonement by substitution! To me, it is catastrophically more serious than it first appears from the current translation!<\/p>\n

28b: \u03c0\u1f71\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1fbf\u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1f77\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f77\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f71\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9<\/p>\n

Oiketes<\/em> would not have a translation as \u201ccommon people,\u201d but \u201cservant.\u201d The translation of \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f77\u03b1\u03bd in v 28b \u201cregistration among the common people\u201d is apt, but where is there a translation of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f71\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd in the text?<\/p>\n

It is absent!!<\/p>\n

Should 28b have the literal translation of \u201cMoreover, all the Jews to be brought into registration and a servant (\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd) disposition (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f71\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd)\u201d? That is, they are to be registered as SLAVES.<\/p>\n

28c: \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u1f73\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u1f77\u1fb3 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u1f73\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9<\/p>\n

This would translate, literally as “moreover those reported (\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u1f73\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) against the decree (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u1f73\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2), by bodily strength their life to be placed in another way\/changed” – a euphemism for killed. Although a more full translation might be “moreover those reported to be resisting the order are to be forcibly seized and put to death”, the more succinct current translation is still apt.<\/p>\n

I propose that a more accurate translation of the entire verse 28 is as follows:<\/p>\n

“Absolutely no persons may enter their own temple to make burnt offerings; moreover all the Jews are to be registered as slaves; moreover all reported resisting are to be forcibly seized and put to death.”<\/p>\n

The current translation in 29a as \u201cmarked on their persons\u201d is somewhat weak and omits \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, \u201cby fire\u201d. I would recommend the more literal translation \u201cmarked by fire on their body\u201d as \u201cbranded.\u201d<\/p>\n

5) Questions of Comprehension of Context<\/strong><\/p>\n

At present, the text reads that upon registration and being branded with the mark of the ivy leaf of Dionysus, these people would be restored to their original condition of being, to some degree, masters of themselves. However, with the absence in the text of reference to slavery, and a misunderstanding over the nature of the temple prohibition, have these both contributed to a misinterpretation of the passage \u2026 and hence a mistranslation of authentia<\/em>?<\/p>\n

The following is my attempt to interpret the passage in its context.<\/p>\n

Jews originally possessed SOME rights as CONQUERED people in their enclave, but nothing like autocracy, denoted by authentia. However, the Jewish priests humiliatingly refused to allow “god” Ptolemy entrance beyond the Court of the Gentiles into the Court of Israel, in order to offer HIS gift. Ptolemy’s stated intent in revenge, was to humiliate all the Jews – who were allowed in the Court of Israel – and to prohibit them from making THEIR gifts. He decided to give them the choice of death or to become slaves deprived of freedoms. He was not going to leave them exactly as they were, “set apart with these limited rights,” being to some degree masters of themselves. They were now not able to sacrifice in their Temple in Jerusalem, thus also no longer demoting him beneath their God. They could not enter to make burnt offerings, thus ending both the many free will offerings, and more crucially, the atoning sacrifices of Judaism. They could merely enter for prayer. However, if they also agreed to bear the publicly humiliating branding mark of a foreign god … as servants of himself and the god Dionysus, no longer just the servants of YHWH, then they would have \u201cauthority to kill” i.e. be allowed to sacrifice, but with those degrading conditions attached.<\/p>\n

These more draconian measures seem more in keeping with the commentary of v 30a, “To do away with the appearance of hating them all.”<\/p>\n

The logic of the whole inscription is: “If you want to pray to YOUR God, you must become my slaves – or die. If you want to sacrifice to Him as well, you must also be branded. But if you agree to worship MY gods (and myself) you will live as free people, with equal rights as Alexandrian citizens.”<\/p>\n

In more detail:<\/p>\n

v 27 Ptolemy’s intent is revealed and an inscribed pillar set up at the Temple’s tower porch saying …<\/p>\n

28a Entrance to Temple is denied to all who wish to make burnt offerings<\/p>\n

v 28b All Jews must be registered as slaves, (resulting in further removal of rights)<\/p>\n

v 28c A death warrant issued for all Jews who resisted.<\/p>\n

v 29a Stipulates a concession – registration and also a visible branding<\/p>\n

v 29b Declares if both conditions are met then they would be “set apart for this now conditional permission to kill\u201d (by sacrificial burnt offering).<\/p>\n

v 30a But they are now slaves with far fewer rights than before and with a devastating limitation of their religious freedom, unless further humiliated by branding. To appear merciful, Ptolemy then offers …<\/p>\n

v 30b An alternative to all the above, is the initiation into the rites of Egyptian gods, then better rights are granted than they had before, as full Alexandrian citizens. (But they would no longer be God-fearing “Jews,” but fulfilling Ptolemy’s plan to have all in Egyptian polytheistic worship, which included honouring himself also, thus fully avenging his previous humiliation by the Jews.<\/p>\n

v 31 SOME politically ambitious Jews saw an advantage to doing this and complied (esteeming entrance to Jerusalem’s temple abhorrent in comparison)<\/p>\n

v 32 Ptolemy’s plan backfires because the God-fearing Jews pay to restore their already limited permissions as conquered people.<\/p>\n

v 33 They gladly trusted God for future aid and also excommunicated and shunned the defectors to Ptolemy.<\/p>\n

Assuming the LATER meaning of “absolute sway or power,” I would suggest that in all of this, the ONLY person with authentia<\/em> is Ptolemy Philopater.<\/p>\n

The Jews themselves devised a way to have their “previous condition” restored by payment. It was not in the original decree that this was an option. It seems to me that in either scenario, that it is not possible that the text says that these people would be \u201crestored to their previous condition of being, to some degree, masters of themselves.\u201d Rather, does not the text say that their permissions would have drastically changed for the better or the worse?<\/p>\n

However, I propose this alternative interpretation of authentia<\/em>, itself entirely possible from the context and the other associated authent<\/em>– words with a meaning of “to slay” (and by sacrifice).<\/p>\n

Ptolemy’s entire motivation for this edict was to avenge himself of the humiliation of not being freely allowed to make a gift to YHWH. Now, if the Jews want to offer THEIR gifts, they need his “PERMISSION TO KILL” by sacrifice. To compound their humiliation, it will be restricted to only those who will be publicly disgraced by bearing the branding mark of a god whose worshippers were notoriously violent and orgiastic.<\/p>\n

Does not “permission\u201d or \u201cauthority to kill” as a translation of authentia<\/em> also provide an excellent semantic route into its later meaning of “absolute sway and authority” when it is over people? But here, it is permission to kill birds and animals in sacrifice.<\/p>\n

In other words, they will be “set apart for this now conditional permission to sacrifice”.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The whole purpose of Ptolemy’s edict was to pay back in greater measure, the humiliation he had received by being denied access to Jerusalem’s Temple to sacrifice to YHWH. Now, if the Jews want “PERMISSION TO KILL” by sacrifice, it will be restricted to only those now enslaved, who will themselves be publicly humiliated to bear the branding mark of a despised foreign god. Since it was the withdrawal of permission to sacrifice which warranted the implementations of the conditions, surely it must be the restoration of the \u201cright to sacrifice\u201d (the authentia) which is the paramount consideration in the edict described in this passage?<\/p>\n

It appears that in this text of ca. 100 BCE, authentia<\/em> carries a more forceful meaning than right, self-determination, permission, authority, word, writ, decree, command or edict. I would propose that the alternative cognates, auto<\/em> and entea<\/em>, confer the correct nuance to the word as one of violence and death, rather than auto<\/em> and hentes<\/em>, which was assumed. There is no justifiable support for the use of those cognates, since meanings derived from them are inconsistent with the context of this passage. I suggest that here, authentia<\/em>, should be understood to be derived from auto<\/em> and entea<\/em> and that it is likely to have the meaning:<\/p>\n

\u201cpermission to sacrifice\u201d<\/p>\n

I would therefore propose that the translation of verses 28 and 29 could be justifiably amended to the following”<\/p>\n

\u201cAbsolutely no persons are to enter their own Temple in order to make burnt offerings; moreover all the Jews are to be registered as slaves; that all who are reported resisting shall be forcibly seized and put to death. Furthermore, those who are thus registered, are to be branded with the ivy leaf symbol of Dionysus, and to be separated for this conditional permission to sacrifice.\u201d<\/p>\n

Might this be worth consideration?<\/p>\n

_<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Septuagint Old Testament<\/a><\/p>\n

The New Testament<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is a proposal by Alison Rowan. If you are an expert in the field you are welcome to contribute to these remarks, concerning 3 MACCABEES 2, 29 ________ I have an interest in the translation of the authent– (\u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4-) words and note that authentia appears in 3 Macc 2:29c as \u201cand to be set […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_disable_autopaging":false},"categories":[5,317,11],"tags":[332,94,100,101],"class_list":["post-2503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-education","category-greek-language","category-elpenor-greek-library","tag-bible","tag-new-testament","tag-old-testament","tag-septuagint"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2503","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}